Not my BHAG

February 15, 2005 8:35 AM

Big Hairy Audacious Goalor BHAG is Coaltion For Christian Outreach's newest evangelical ministry. It is an outreach program to make 750 commitment calls per year which will include spending five hours a week building one-on-one relationships with non-Christians, leading a small-group evangelistic Bible study each year, Training in relational evangelism for every leader, and staff teams spending time together each week in prayer for the lost.
In the 40's, A young man named Billy Graham started empowered the evangelical movement holding tent revivals and encouraging people to be missionaries. Born out of that was a more charged fundamentalist movement that we are famliar with today. Going from Billy to BHAG's begs the question, have Evangelicals evolved?
posted by Hands of Manos (28 comments total)

Big Hairy Audacious Goal (BHAG) is the concept presented in the business book From Good To Great , so it would seem to me that evolution in this case starts at Barnes & Noble.
posted by brheavy at 8:45 AM on February 15, 2005

"It turns out that our DNA may predispose humans toward religious faith."

It makes me thinks that sadly Christianity may have been exploiting a natural human condition for 2000 years.
posted by Mean Mr. Bucket at 8:46 AM on February 15, 2005

Evolved? No.

Is america's mainstream religious cult aggressively recruiting new believers? Yes.

Incidentally, Billy Graham started the youth christian movement in the 40's with Charles Templeton, who later wrote a book titled Fairwell to God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Templeton
posted by disgruntled at 8:57 AM on February 15, 2005

No -- but it shows how "thought viruses" mutate. Just like AIDS, memes are able to become more virulent, more destructive, and more difficult to stamp out. Not a new idea -- look at Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash for more on this topic.
posted by mooncrow at 9:11 AM on February 15, 2005

Going from Billy to BHAG's begs the question, have Evangelicals evolved?

No, actually evolution is just a theory. Evangelicals are created.
posted by 327.ca at 9:15 AM on February 15, 2005

Small typo correction:

have Evangelicals devolved?

No need to thank me.
posted by nofundy at 9:25 AM on February 15, 2005

"an outreach program to make 750 commitment calls per year which will include spending five hours a week building one-on-one relationships with non-ChristiansDemocrats, leading a small-group evangelistic Bible liberal progressivism study each year...."

Now if Howard Dean can just get the Democrats to go forth like this among the Red Staters to spread the Good News of Universal Healthcare and other Northeastern Values.

Eh, but then again, what liberal Democrat can find time for 750 commitment calls, what with the PBS fund raisers and the wine tastings and the hedonistic orgies?

Not to mention the blogging.
posted by orthogonality at 9:38 AM on February 15, 2005

Eh, but then again, what liberal Democrat can find time for 750 commitment calls, what with the PBS fund raisers and the wine tastings and the hedonistic orgies?

You recruit Anne Coulter to your side
posted by Hands of Manos at 9:42 AM on February 15, 2005

Now if Howard Dean can just get the Democrats to go forth like this among the Red Staters to spread the Good News of Universal Healthcare and other Northeastern Values.

When I heard about Dean's wish to "reach out" to conservative Christians, I just wanted to scream. What is it about the separation of church and state that Americans just don't get? This endless sucking up to religiosity is revolting and embarassing to watch.

It's time for new ideas, and Dean ain't it.
posted by 327.ca at 9:50 AM on February 15, 2005

When I heard about Dean's wish to "reach out" to conservative Christians, I just wanted to scream. What is it about the separation of church and state that Americans just don't get? This endless sucking up to religiosity is revolting and embarassing to watch.

Uh uh uh uh. I may be a little bit off, but I figure seperate of church and state is about preventing government endorsement of a main religion, and not about excluding people with beliefs that are unpopular with 'enlightened' people.
posted by Josh Zhixel at 10:00 AM on February 15, 2005

The more I look at the world around me, the more I realize how dead-on right Dawkins is about memes. Christianity is one shining example of actions being competely guided by one's infection with a particularly virulent meme.
posted by mullingitover at 10:20 AM on February 15, 2005

No, actually evolution is just a theory. Evangelicals are created.

Can we slap stickers on their foreheads to remind us of this fact?
posted by AlexReynolds at 10:24 AM on February 15, 2005

Uh uh uh uh. I may be a little bit off, but I figure seperate of church and state is about preventing government endorsement of a main religion, and not about excluding people with beliefs that are unpopular with 'enlightened' people.

If "people with beliefs that are unpopular with 'enlightened' people" do indeed feel excluded, then maybe it's up to them to find ways of being included. Or not.

You might say that's what they did, and that's why the Republicans won. I suppose that's true. But using religion as a way of attracting political support (which is what Dean seems to be endorsing) says to me that the Democrats are stooping to conquer.

I consider fundamentalists of all flavours equally offensive. Basically, I'm tired of religious bigots highjacking the public agenda.
posted by 327.ca at 10:26 AM on February 15, 2005

327: I don't think deans plan is to change the democratic ideal to fit into fundy BS, but rather to frame dem message in a way that apeals to Religous people. The idea of helping the poor, helping the suffering with universal healthcare is not an anti-christian value.
posted by delmoi at 10:28 AM on February 15, 2005

but, I don't want to be religious! I just wanna be left alone!
posted by mcsweetie at 10:33 AM on February 15, 2005

what mcsweetie said--and also the very important fact that many of us non-Christians already have our own religions, thank you.
posted by amberglow at 10:45 AM on February 15, 2005

The idea of helping the poor, helping the suffering with universal healthcare is not an anti-christian value.

Of course it's not anti-christian. And it's not christian either, for chrissakes! It's a basic humanitarian concept found inside and outside of religion, and nothing new to Democratic policy.

When you start "framing" your message to appeal to religious wackos, you're just starting down the same road travelled by the Republicans. I think that political discourse should be conducted in as secular a way as possible. When the language of political discourse changes in order to make intolerant zealots feel included, then it's a kick in the nuts for the common good.

In my humble opinion...
posted by 327.ca at 10:47 AM on February 15, 2005

327.ca: You're right on the mark my friend, every word.

delmoi: No, its not an anti-Christian value, but when have extremely religious conservatives recently propagated a message which was in accord with Christian values? To me it seems like the fundies exploit the rhetoric of a few particular Bible verses to promote their divisive, hateful agenda, and now that they've successfully co-opted the government with that paradigm they're going to be advancing it for years.

My point is that it's way too easy to exploit religion, especially Christianity (given the convoluted nature of its essential tenets and scriptures), for whatever manipulative purposes one desires. This is the spiritual inssurrection currently beseiging American thought, and I guarantee you that as this current wave of ignorance controls the public agenda we as a society wil make no progress.

I wish these BHAG folks would make friends with me. I can't tell you how many times I've had people tell me, "Brian, I used to be such a believer, and then I started hanging out with you..." I'll have these people over for booze and cookies any time.
posted by baphomet at 10:47 AM on February 15, 2005

Whoops, forgot to hit the spell check button. You all get the idea.

Continuing 327's last thought, it really irks me that fundamentalists feel the need to inject religion into every aspect of their lives, and especially politics. What's good for your soul is not necessarily good for the state. I've met several Christians who vote based on their social, not religious, values, and I wish there were more of them out there. Even if I had strong religious beliefs I'd still (I hope) draw the line. Is it so much to ask, that people should vote based on their social values and not based on what the invisible man in the sky's lapdogs tell them?
posted by baphomet at 10:53 AM on February 15, 2005

what if you want to be religious AND left alone?

Remember, Evangelical Fundamentals are only a faction of Christianity. I'm sure I could have found (with some digging) a fpp about something stupid a left winged liberal did.

What I'm saying, not all Christians are these folks with an ax to grind. Some Christians just want to socially mop up the hell that has happened (taking care of people dying of aids and no one giving a flying fuck about them, the homeless, protesting hate and advocating peace).

But as baphomet put it, yes...the love (masked in hatred) that people deem as Christians is horrible (which Brian, your job is null and void because Believers are helping people become non-believers faster than you ever can -- in 10 years the Red States will be in total confusion and disarray). I just so wish that the moderate to liberal Christians had a stronger voice...but they get bullied so much by their Pauline Bretheren.
posted by Hands of Manos at 10:54 AM on February 15, 2005

oops - "the hatred (masked in love)..."

fucking dyslexia. Does anyone else have to deal with that as well? (I really do have it)
posted by Hands of Manos at 10:55 AM on February 15, 2005

what if you want to be religious AND left alone?

Yeah, that's a good question and I don't have any quick answers.

There's a community here in BC that's receiving a lot of scrutiny because it's mainly populated by a fundamentalist sect whose practices are what most would consider sexual abuse.
posted by 327.ca at 11:01 AM on February 15, 2005

Fundamentalist Christianity is closely allied with business in today's Republican Party. Is it any wonder that they would adopt some of the more interesting and successful ideas about growth to come out of the business world?

For those not familiar with that word, the idea behind the "BHAG" is that you won't achieve any big goals if you don't have them or can't express them.
posted by Slothrup at 11:17 AM on February 15, 2005

327.ca
When you start "framing" your message to appeal to religious wackos, you're just starting down the same road travelled by the Republicans. I think that political discourse should be conducted in as secular a way as possible. When the language of political discourse changes in order to make intolerant zealots feel included, then it's a kick in the nuts for the common good.

I think the problem with this is that doing what they "ought" to (i.e. restricting themselves to secular political discourse) is likely to keep the Dems out of power as it further reinforces the all-too-common notion that the GOP is the party of God and that they're "more moral" than the Dems because they are openly sympathetic to fundamentalist dogma.

Do the "right" thing, or be in power, it seems you can't do both.
posted by kcds at 1:52 PM on February 15, 2005

Do the "right" thing, or be in power, it seems you can't do both.

Um, don't get me wrong, I voted Democrat, but it's a bit simplistic to act as if the Democratic Party has some kind of ethical purity that they need to avoid fouling. The Democrats are less corrupt than Bush and company, but they're no angels. The Party already panders to get votes (all political parties do), the question is how they're going to pander to get this particular social group.
posted by unreason at 2:06 PM on February 15, 2005

Do the "right" thing, or be in power, it seems you can't do both.

Yeah, I can't argue with that. It seems that way because the political landscape is littered with second-rate hacks, cranio-rectal pundits, and star-making machinery. History has shown that individuals of integrity and vision can mobilize support and produce change. If Democrats don't believe that, then they might as well just offer to buy votes.
posted by 327.ca at 3:32 PM on February 15, 2005

Hands of Manos: "I just so wish that the moderate to liberal Christians had a stronger voice"

Check out the Sojourners group (www.sojo.net). Jim Wallis' book "God's Politics" and their recent campaign "God is not a Republican...or a Democrat" have been welcome food for thought. And they've been doing this stuff for thirty years or more...
posted by jmcnally at 8:23 PM on February 15, 2005

jmcnally,

I know Jim Wallis very well. I've sat on a few of his lectures too. I'm a very big fan of sojo

thanks for the info though!
posted by Hands of Manos at 12:09 PM on February 16, 2005